Feds considering allowing DVD-encryption cracking

The U.S. Copyright Office heard requests for loopholes in its rules this week.

LOS ANGELES—Federal regulators considered testimony Wednesday here at UCLA Law School on whether to allow citizens and filmmakers to legally crack DVD encryption meant to protect the discs from being copied.

Filmmakers, video mixers and others have petitioned the U.S. Copyright Office for the ability to continue to use DVD decryption tools to copy short clips of DVDs from motion pictures to put into their own films. The issue isn't whether they have a fair-use right to the material, but whether they can utilize decrypting tools to make the best reproduction for film-making purposes.

Another proposal for the first time calls for the public at large to be authorized to make copies of their own DVDs without breaching the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which makes it unlawful to circumvent encryption technologies in items that you buy.

Earlier in the day, here at UCLA, regulators held a hearing as part of its deliberations over whether it will continue to allow Americans to jailbreak their mobile phones, and whether they will expand that right to cover tablets and video game consoles. Jailbreaking and rooting are techniques used to get past manufacturer-installed roadblocks that prevent users from having full control over their devices.

Every three years, the U.S. Copyright Office entertains requests to create temporary loopholes in the law that outlaws the circumvention of encryption technologies. The afternoon public hearing largely focused on the so-called CSS that must be cracked to make a copy of a DVD. All DMCA exemptions, which are proposed by the public, expire in three years and must be reauthorized by the Copyright Office.

Clarissa Weirick, the general counsel of Warner Brothers Home Entertainment, testified against all the decryption measures.

"If we didn't have access controls, there might be the same kind of mass piracy we've seen with unprotected music," Weirick said about the copying of DVDs, a proposal put forth by digital rights group Public Knowledge, which did not attend the hearing.

Weirick, a representative from Fox and the major motion picture studios under the Motion Picture Association of America opposed all the measures proposed in the afternoon public hearing, which included about 2 dozen members of the public in attendance.

They said that there is no need to grant the public the right to make copies of their DVDs because the studios are streaming and selling movies online now, and that the public does not own the movies they buy on DVDs. They own the license to play it on a DVD, they argued.

And when it comes to cracking encryption to make snippets out of films to be put in new films, the industry opposed reauthorizing the cracking of the DVD encryption for that purpose. The industry testified that filmmakers instead can use screen-capturing software or they can license the clips from the studios.

Filmmakers oppose that because of the poor quality of screen-capture reproduction.

(Screen-capturing does not crack encryption because it copies what is shown on a computer screen.)

"The fabric of reality is very important to these projects," he testified.

Jonathan McIntosh, a remix artist, was also asking the regulators to allow him to bypass circumvention that prevents the copying of streamed movies so that he may use the best picture quality available of the snippets he places in his own films. Doing so, he said, helps "to engage in a healthy public debate."

He said he has a "zero budget" when it comes to paying for a license, some of which carry clauses that forbid filmmakers from disparaging the movie.

Maria Pallante, the register of copyrights, wondered aloud:

"But I think we’ve heard the market is changing rapidly. Licensing options are changing. Conceivably even with a budget of zero, permission might be possible," she said.

Corynne McSherry, the intellectual property coordinator with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Pallante and other top-ranking lawyers in the U.S. Copyright Office here that granting the exemptions at issue is "not going to help pirates," so they must be granted.

Exemptions are allotted by the Copyright Office if regulators are convinced consumers are "adversely affected in their ability to make non-infringing use due to the prohibition on circumvention."

Approved exemptions by the Copyright Office must be also be sanctioned by the Librarian of Congress, currently James Billington. Regulators are not expected to make any approvals until later this year, at a date not yet disclosed.

Weirick, a representative from Fox and the major motion picture studios under the Motion Picture Association of America opposed all the measures proposed in the afternoon public hearing, which included about 2 dozen members of the public in attendance.

They said that there is no need to grant the public the right to make copies of their DVDs because the studios are streaming and selling movies online now, and that the public does not own the movies they buy on DVDs. They own the license to play it on a DVD, they argued.

Weirick you can DIAF. i dont own my DVD? then why can i resell it? Why should i have to buy he movie online if i already own it?

If you only buy the license for the DVD and not the actual DVD shouldnt the studios make it so you can replace the DVD if it gets stolen or damaged... I mean all you are buying is a EULA shoudn't they be me accoutable to replace the damaged medium .... I agree if you only bought the license for the movie then they shouldn't complain about being able to transfer it to a portable device...

Weirick, a representative from Fox and the major motion picture studios under the Motion Picture Association of America opposed all the measures proposed in the afternoon public hearing, which included about 2 dozen members of the public in attendance.

They said that there is no need to grant the public the right to make copies of their DVDs because the studios are streaming and selling movies online now, and that the public does not own the movies they buy on DVDs. They own the license to play it on a DVD, they argued.

Weirick you can DIAF. i dont own my DVD? then why can i resell it? Why should i have to buy he movie online if i already own it?

god i hate this shit.

The music and film industry thrive on having an individual purchase the same thing as many times as possible. When that slows down, they remake the same movies they made 10 years ago, or release "mastered" collections of songs from albums you already own.

"If we didn't have access controls, there might be the same kind of mass piracy we've seen with unprotected music,"

Yeah, CSS has really stopped every DVD ever made from being shared via FTP, P2P (torrents and the like), USENET and file lockers.

Not only that, but:

Quote:

They said that there is no need to grant the public the right to make copies of their DVDs because the studios are streaming and selling movies online now, and that the public does not own the movies they buy on DVDs. They own the license to play it on a DVD, they argued.

How many commercials have you seen that explicitly say "own it on DVD or Blu-Ray today?" I've never heard anything about owning "a license to play it."

If you only buy the license for the DVD and not the actual DVD shouldnt the studios make it so you can replace the DVD if it gets stolen or damaged... I mean all you are buying is a EULA shoudn't they be me accoutable to replace the damaged medium .... I agree if you only bought the license for the movie then they shouldn't complain about being able to transfer it to a portable device...

And you should have the ability to download a digital copy as well if all you own is the license for the price they still charge for the physical media.

"They said that there is no need to grant the public the right to make copies of their DVDs because the studios are streaming and selling movies online now, and that the public does not own the movies they buy on DVDs. They own the license to play it on a DVD, they argued."

Big WTF there, last time I checked I agreed to no EULA before playing any DVDs I "own" ans all DVD sales and ads ever say are "own it today" so false advertising or this speaker is lying.

In the event this speaker is not lying I would like to request 50 replacement discs for all the DVDs that I have. Costs should be minimal since you already have the discs in a warehouse and I do not need the boxes or booklets. I expect to pay around 0.25 per disc since I know you pay pennies for them already. I will of course send you the proof of purchase to verify I "own" the DVDs.

If people are tech savvy enough to know how to upload a torrent, they are going to be able to download a program to rip a DVD. DVD encryption regulations stop no one. Even some of the most clueless of my friends and family have purchased programs to transfer their DVDs to their iPods.

To the MPAA and studios, I say engage in all the arguments and lobbying against file sharing that you would like, but let's get real about encryption regulations. Surely you can't be that out of touch with reality.

(And yes, that last sentence is meant to serve as a quotable springboard for examples of ridiculous MPAA actions and Airplane jokes

"If we didn't have access controls, there might be the same kind of mass piracy we've seen with unprotected music," Weirick said about the copying of DVDs

Or, if we didn't have access controls, consumers would have the same kind of legal use of DVDs with iTunes and their iPods that they've enjoyed with CDs for 10 years.

The "license" to a DVD is a hard to support legal fiction. People bought DVDs without an agreement, and for years the industry referred to buying and owning DVDs and VHS tapes. "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck, not a DVD rental." Autodesk notwithstanding.

"They said that there is no need to grant the public the right to make copies of their DVDs because the studios are streaming and selling movies online now, and that the public does not own the movies they buy on DVDs. They own the license to play it on a DVD, they argued.

They said that there is no need to grant the public the right to make copies of their DVDs because the studios are streaming and selling movies online now, and that the public does not own the movies they buy on DVDs. They own the license to play it on a DVD, they argued."

This statement should not come as a surpise. The ultimate goal of the studios IS in fact to have you pay EVERY TIME you play a movie, even if it some kind of local copy that you (don't) own on DVD or however. Right now this is not the case (yet), but they are taking it slowly, step by step, until that goal is achieved. I'm waiting to see when we get DVD players with a credit card slot (joke, but maybe not)!

But the fact that are saying this so openly now, leads me to believe that they feel quite confident about the purchased government officials/upcoming laws that they have made.

In all honesty, this really is getting ridiculous and the sooner this whole conflict comes to a head the better. Because prolonging it really does not get us anywhere--they (studios) are not suddenly going to have an about-face and neither are we; this will not be solved by peaceful means (by which I don't mean there will need to be PHYSICAL violence, but...).

Exemptions are allotted by the Copyright Office if regulators are convinced consumers are "adversely affected in their ability to make non-infringing use due to the prohibition on circumvention."

This is the only part that matters. Saying that better zero-budget licensing will show up, or that it could help pirates, or that people don't own the DVD is irrelevant.

Fair-use is constitutionally protected. Using small clips has been deemed fair-use. Consumers are adversely affected from using clips (fair use is non-infringing use) due to prohibition on circumvention. Therefore, an exemption should be made.

That's all you need to know. Everything the industry rep said is completely off-topic.

We have paid for all content we have. And yet we always rip a DVD before we watch it. For two reasons. It is a pain to get up from the couch and look for a disk and insert into the drive. We have a gyro media center remote. It defeats the purpose if you have to get up and fiddle with the media center PC. And two, the unskippable previews and copyright warnings and dumb animated DVD menus that take 10 seconds to go from one screen to the next. Screw that. When I hit PLAY I expect the MOVIE to start playing. Not 4 different corporate logos in a row, then FBI, then a preview for some stupid movie I would never watch, and then a dumb animated menu whose sole options are english or spanish subtitles.

" How many commercials have you seen that explicitly say "own it on DVD or Blu-Ray today?" I've never heard anything about owning "a license to play it."

I'd say I've seen and heard that commercial one thousand times. (It's not popular at the moment but that's beside the point.)

Take note all our ads used to say something like: " Come into our store and Spend Spend Spend ! " Advertising did this because everyone knew how much fun spending money was, so all the ads promoted spending.

Then along came the lying psycho-analyst babbling PR turn the world on it's head fruitcake overlords society and for sale US government laws arena.Everyone knows you're not saving tens, hundreds nor thousands when you go shopping, but every ad we have related claims you are saving not spending- saving compared to spending on what else they rarely state.

This no doubt overall is the reason they can legally get away with their own it on DVD now commercials.It's not ethical, it's not moral, it's not correct as we see, but they certainly have no concerns, the rule now generally is the bigger the lie the better. I'm sure the politicians love it as then some other entity as a whole perhaps eclipses their percentage of lying vs time their personal advert mouth is open.

Expect the worst any time any US government assigned authority moves on some legislation granted powers is my current much degraded attitude - after they announce their great deed, all the daemons are in the details, and most of those daemons will never be exposed to the light of public review - only a very rare one or two wrongs will be aired, and the massive new pool of burning hell created will be covered up and unknown generally forever.

Sheesh, the film industry is just doing their best to make fools of themselves. A DVD is just a "license" to view a movie on the stored media? Please, give me a break. Somebody needs to explain to these people why piracy exists. It started not because people didn't want to pay to play, but because Hollywood made it more difficult and/or annoying to do so. By making their controls less restricting, they stand to be able to drive a loyal fan base.

What gets me is that Hollywood has it the easiest of all the entertainment industries. Most of their money is made on initial advertising and in the box office. If they're really making enough money on BD/DVD/Streaming sales to spend millions on an agenda of bullying their viewers, then both the WGA and the AG need to consider renegotiating their contracts in order to get a bigger slice of that pie.

Meanwhile, the music industry is doing just fine despite their claims of mass piracy (and nobody is disputing those claims, including the artists who are content to give some of their tracks away for free and live off of concerts and merchandising). Book publishing, however, is all about royalties in order to feed their artists, and the more Hollywood tries to restrict fair use, the more people are going to rally against the copyright laws which are keeping books marketable.

"If we didn't have access controls, there might be the same kind of mass piracy we've seen with unprotected music," Weirick said about the copying of DVDs

Or, if we didn't have access controls, consumers would have the same kind of legal use of DVDs with iTunes and their iPods that they've enjoyed with CDs for 10 years.

The "license" to a DVD is a hard to support legal fiction. People bought DVDs without an agreement, and for years the industry referred to buying and owning DVDs and VHS tapes. "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck, not a DVD rental." Autodesk notwithstanding.

The difference is Autodesk had a signed agreement where the original purchaser got cheaper upgrades so long as he promised not to resell the old versions. No such agreement exists on DVD's. Nothing signed at the store, nothing to check off when playing the disc. More over, as others have stated, every ad for films has clearly stated "Own the [insert media format] today". Yet now I'm being told I don't own anything. So how is it that the first sale doctrine applies?

More over, as others have stated, every ad for films has clearly stated "Own the [insert media format] today". Yet now I'm being told I don't own anything. So how is it that the first sale doctrine applies?

No, you've got it all wrong. You own the plastic and metal, you just can't play without abiding by the license. The MPAA can provide you a copy of that license for $29.50 shipping and handling. You have to sign an NDA to see it. Oh, and you cannot disparage it or you will lose all license to view the content of the plastic and metal discs you purchased.

Weirick, a representative from Fox and the major motion picture studios under the Motion Picture Association of America opposed all the measures proposed in the afternoon public hearing, which included about 2 dozen members of the public in attendance.

They said that there is no need to grant the public the right to make copies of their DVDs because the studios are streaming and selling movies online now, and that the public does not own the movies they buy on DVDs. They own the license to play it on a DVD, they argued.

I would love to be able to testify at this hearing, wherein I would play one of the previews for an upcoming blu-ray/DVD release from any of Disney's movies, where they very specifically say "Own it today on blu-ray or DVD".

These are the kind of stupid statements I'd like to see the MPAA and RIAA make more of.

Really? You told me 'Own it on DVD', but now you say I don't I just got a license to watch it? But wait, I don't see a EULA anywhere on my DVD package or in the insert - where is this license I'm agreeing to?

Looks like it is getting closer to the day when FINALLY I will be able to rip all my DVDs and Blu-rays and play them on a beautiful XBMC - based HTPC connected to my plasma. And also stream them via DLNA to my other TV via a WD box. And be able to take them with me on the road on a laptop or tablet. Man, I can't wait!! I hope it goes through!

Looks like it is getting closer to the day when FINALLY I will be able to rip all my DVDs and Blu-rays and play them on a beautiful XBMC - based HTPC connected to my plasma. And also stream them via DLNA to my other TV via a WD box. And be able to take them with me on the road on a laptop or tablet. Man, I can't wait!! I hope it goes through!

If you only buy the license for the DVD and not the actual DVD shouldnt the studios make it so you can replace the DVD if it gets stolen or damaged... I mean all you are buying is a EULA shoudn't they be me accoutable to replace the damaged medium .... I agree if you only bought the license for the movie then they shouldn't complain about being able to transfer it to a portable device...

That would be great for me right now. I'm having trouble ripping a disc from my The World at War box set to convert for viewing on my WDTV...

Why are all the commentors here so stupid? This is the same crap I've had to read on Steam forums about users complaining that they arent happy that Steam has told them that they own a license to a game, and not the actual game. Since the dawn of time, you all have never bought the actual movies, you have always bought licenses to own and play the movie, but not own the movie itself. Are you people so dumb that you don't even know what this means? Let me make it simple for you idiots.

Who owns the movie? The producer. You don't own the movie, you can't produce and sell the movie, you didn't make the movie.

What do you own then? The optical disc that the movie is imprinted on, and the right to use this disc wherever you please, so long as you aren't copying the producers work and distributing it to others.

Is it that hard to understand? It's the same with games, you can't buy the game itself, the developer/publisher owns the game, you can't steal ownership of the rights of the game. You only own the right to own a copy of the game to install and play yourself. You do not have the right to copy, crack, and distribute this game. All consumers have ever owned is the disc filled with 1s and 0s. There is no such thing as a physical copy, it's all digital, and it's only a license.

Why are all the commentors here so stupid? This is the same crap I've had to read on Steam forums about users complaining that they arent happy that Steam has told them that they own a license to a game, and not the actual game. Since the dawn of time, you all have never bought the actual movies, you have always bought licenses to own and play the movie, but not own the movie itself. Are you people so dumb that you don't even know what this means? Let me make it simple for you idiots.

Who owns the movie? The producer. You don't own the movie, you can't produce and sell the movie, you didn't make the movie.

What do you own then? The optical disc that the movie is imprinted on, and the right to use this disc wherever you please, so long as you aren't copying the producers work and distributing it to others.

Is it that hard to understand? It's the same with games, you can't buy the game itself, the developer/publisher owns the game, you can't steal ownership of the rights of the game. You only own the right to own a copy of the game to install and play yourself. You do not have the right to copy, crack, and distribute this game. All consumers have ever owned is the disc filled with 1s and 0s. There is no such thing as a physical copy, it's all digital, and it's only a license.

"You do not have the right to copy," -- Actually you do have the right to copy.MPAA vs Betamax

All consumers have ever owned is the disc filled with 1s and 0s. There is no such thing as a physical copy, it's all digital, and it's only a license.

I got it, so processing the license makes a movie magically appear on my screen from nothing. I will say, that's quite impressive. Less so than the disc actually containing a physically encoded copy of the movie, I'll admit.

The 1s and 0s on the disc is not a license, it is 1s and 0s that you are allowed to process on a video player because of the license. What seems like magic to you, is only basic computer science to us.

The 1s and 0s on the disc is not a license, it is 1s and 0s that you are allowed to process on a video player because of the license. What seems like magic to you, is only basic computer science to us.

No, I'm allowed to process the 1s and 0s because I bought the media they are encoded on. Show me the license (EULA) on a DVD. Go ahead.

The 1s and 0s on the disc is not a license, it is 1s and 0s that you are allowed to process on a video player because of the license. What seems like magic to you, is only basic computer science to us.

Apparently you skipped grammar on your way there, because that is not what you said:

mmstick wrote:

There is no such thing as a physical copy, it's all digital, and it's only a license.

Name one movie you own the rights to, NONE. I don't see your name plastered all over movies credits as the sole owner of the movie. Why don't you put that brain of yours to work and actually try to comprehend what you read instead of spouting off nonsense and acting like some kind of maniac who thinks he owns everything. The license is included with every disc, both as you play the movie, and copyright notices imprinted on the case itself. THEY own the movie, THEY own ALL RIGHTS to sell the movie to you. YOU do not own the movie, YOU only own the right to own the disc it is imprinted on, and the data inside to play. YOU do not have access to ANY of the source material.

License: A permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade.

YOU are permitted to own and use the DVD you purchase. YOU are NOT permitted to own the movie and sole rights/ownership to it.

I own several copies of movies. And thanks to certain exceptions built into copyright laws, I have the right to do certain things with those copies besides just play them on TV. I have never signed or agreed to any "license," not even a clickwrap one, for any of these copies. I can't be party to a license I've never signed or agreed to, even implicitly, when no explicit or implicit license existed. And I was repeatedly told in commercials that I could "Own it today on DVD!"

mmstick wrote:

YOU are NOT permitted to own the movie and sole rights/ownership to it.

Funny how quick you are to call everyone else stupid when you're arguing against stupid, imaginary things that nobody has said. As happens so often in cases where "everybody else" is wrong, they're not the ones making the mistake.